The first one is tmpfs (2GB md) The other is UFS On Mon, 16 Jan 2012, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 04:04:31 +0000 (UTC) From: YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamt%mwd.biglobe.ne.jp@localhost> To: jaimef%mauthesis.com@localhost Cc: chuq%chuq.com@localhost, tech-kern%netbsd.org@localhost Subject: Re: O->A loan hi, i'm wondering why the following two are this drastically different. was there configuration changes more than flipping DIAGNOSTIC? http://linbsd.org/yamt.png http://linbsd.org/yamt3.png YAMAMOTO TakashiThis is the same hardware. rmind had noticed in the lockstat output that fileassoc was being called on all unlink() operation. So I am rerunning the tests without fileassoc. On Mon, 16 Jan 2012, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 03:47:48 +0000 (UTC) From: YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamt%mwd.biglobe.ne.jp@localhost> To: jaimef%mauthesis.com@localhost Cc: chuq%chuq.com@localhost, tech-kern%netbsd.org@localhost Subject: Re: O->A loan hi, thanks. is this on a different hardware from the previous one? YAMAMOTO TakashiHello Yamamoto-san I have run dbench on ufs/wapbl with diagnostics disabled. http://linbsd.org/yamt3.png On Thu, 12 Jan 2012, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 03:31:59 +0000 (UTC) From: YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamt%mwd.biglobe.ne.jp@localhost> To: jaimef%mauthesis.com@localhost Cc: chuq%chuq.com@localhost, tech-kern%netbsd.org@localhost Subject: Re: O->A loan hi,I did not remove DIAGNOSTIC. Would you like me to rerun without DIAGNOSTIC?yes, please. YAMAMOTO TakashiOn Thu, 12 Jan 2012, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 03:14:33 +0000 (UTC) From: YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamt%mwd.biglobe.ne.jp@localhost> To: jaimef%mauthesis.com@localhost Cc: chuq%chuq.com@localhost, tech-kern%netbsd.org@localhost Subject: Re: O->A loan hi, thanks for benchmark! was it without DIAGNOSTIC? YAMAMOTO TakashiHello Yamamoto-san, I ran dbench on the same system with yamt-pagecache, yamt-pagecache without a-o loan, and yamt-pagecache-base3. http://linbsd.org/yamt.png The tests were run three times on each kernel and the results were consistent between reboots/runs. Thanks. On Tue, 27 Dec 2011, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 02:53:29 +0000 (UTC) From: YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamt%mwd.biglobe.ne.jp@localhost> To: chuq%chuq.com@localhost Cc: tech-kern%netbsd.org@localhost Subject: Re: O->A loan hi, i made read with O->A loaning work for easy cases (ie. no locking difficulty) on yamt-pagecache branch so that someone interested can benchmark. YAMAMOTO Takashihi,On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 06:38:27AM +0000, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:O->A loaned pages installed on the user address space would have a different owner than the usual map->entry.uvm_obj. although it was not a problem when you wrote this patch, at least some non-mechanical changes would be required after the recent locking changes in this area. namely, uvm_map_lock_entry etc now assumes that any pages mapped in a map entry belong to either the entry's amap or underlying object.ok, I didn't think it would be entirely mechanical. :-) what if the O->A loan code also changed the entry's uvm_obj to be the vnode that the pages really belong to? if the loan range in the amap is fully populated (which it is in this context) then that shouldn't affect the logical contents of the entry, it would just cause anyone locking the entry to also lock the vnode. if the range of the loan is smaller than the range of the entry, we could split the entry. do you think that would work?it might work, but i have some concerns: - entry fragmentation - the extra uobj reference keeps the file even after unlink YAMAMOTO Takashi-Chuck